The article addresses concerns regarding the random assignment of cases within Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF), particularly focusing on a high-profile case known as 'Master'. Initially allocated to Minister Dias Toffoli, who had connections with a bank involved in the case, the case was later reassigned to Minister André Mendonça by a random drawing. This situation has raised suspicions about the integrity of the algorithm used for case assignments, prompting a discussion about the potential for bias and conflicts of interest among justices.

While some may view the initial draw to Toffoli as a sign of impropriety, the article argues that such conclusions may be premature. With only ten ministers participating in the case assignments (excluding the president of the court), the chance of any particular minister receiving a case stands at only 10%. Such probabilities are not statistically anomalous. However, the commentator draws an analogy, stating they would not board a plane with a 10% chance of crashing to underscore the need for examining the system’s reliability.

The author notes that criticism of the STF's algorithm is valid, emphasizing that the random selection process, while designed to be fair, is complex and can never be perfectly random due to the nature of computer operations. Computers generate results based on deterministic processes and can only simulate randomness (pseudo-randomness). Thus, while the system may suffice in many applications, it remains susceptible to scrutiny and demands improvements to bolster public confidence in judicial proceedings.